September 2009 Archives

Starting October 1st, the State of Maryland will begin to impose new penalties against DUI and underage drinking offenders. 

The new DUI penalties are aimed at levying heavier punishment against repeat drunk driving offenders.  Specifically, any individual who is convicted of driving while impaired for a second time within a period of 5 years will be subjected to a mandatory 1 year suspension of their license.  The legislature has also increased what is referred to as the 'look back' period for repeat offenders.  In the past, Maryland Courts would consider a jail sentence in lieu of probation for any offender who had a prior DUI conviction over the past 5 years.  Under the new legislation, however, the 'look back' period has extended review for a prior DUI conviction to the past 10 years.

The State legislature has also imposed new penalties for violators of underage drinking laws.  The heaviest penalties under the new laws are saved for those who supply alcohol to individuals under the age of 21.  People convicted of unlawfully supplying alcohol to minors under the age of 21 will face a possible fine of up to $2,500.  Minors convicted of consuming alcohol when under the age of 21 face a possible fine of up to $500.

Those that have been charged with a DUI or underage drinking offense need to be aware that a more serious punishment awaits them if convicted.  The law firm of Portner & Shure has experience in Maryland, Virginia and Texas and can help if you have been charged with an alcohol-related offense.  If you have been charged with an alcohol-related offense and are looking for a free consultation, please visit us at www.portnerandshure.com. 

If you believe that your arrest may have been the result of an illegal stop or frisk by law enforcement officials, please visit us at www.portnerandshure.com. 

Whether you are accused of a crime in Maryland, Virginia, or Texas, the same rules apply, in most instances the State must inform you, and your attorney, the identity of who will be testifying against you. A recent article in the Daily Record http://www.mddailyrecord.com/ on August 27, 2009, wrote about this Maryland case, State v. Lancaster http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=12272&type=UTTM and looked at this issue.

In Lancaster, the Defendant was allegedly in a group of armed men who robbed an Olney home after one of its residents used a counterfeit $100 bill to buy drugs from Lancaster's girlfriend. Before trial the Judge granted the State's request to bar Lancaster's lawyer from sharing the names of the State's witnesses with him. The Court reasoned that the substantial risk of harm to the witnesses outweighed Lancaster's right to know their names before trial.

While looking more closely at the rights of a Defendant, Maryland's highest Court reached a different outcome. The Court found that prosecutors failed to present evidence of "specific threats" from Lancaster against the witnesses. Further, since he was in jail pending trial, the State needed to show how Lancaster had the means to carry out the threat. More importantly, the Court indicated that Lancaster's right of cross-examination was critical, since the witnesses knew each other, and cross could reveal a motive to testify falsely. Motives cannot be explored without thorough cross-examination. As the State acknowledged in this case, seeking protective orders that shield the names of the witnesses from defendant's should be an extraordinary measure.

If you or a family member has been charged with a crime, please do not hesitate to give us a call or visit us on the web at www.portnerandshure.com